Re: [PATCH] interpreter-exec error path

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > > Yes, I think this does what Andrew Cagney intended but the underlying
 > > interpreter has already signalled the exception so I think it could be
 > > handled normally:
 > 
 > There's a FIXME saying that the underlying interpreter shouldn't do
 > this, if I understand your suggestion properly:
 > 
 >   /* FIXME: cagney/2005-01-13: This shouldn't be needed.  Instead the
 >      caller should print the exception.  */
 >   exception_print (gdb_stderr, e);
 >
 > > Taking things a step further, I see that mi_interpreter_exec always
 > > returns exception_none so cli_interpreter_exec could do the same (patch
 > > below).  The command interpreter-exec can handle a list of commands, this
 > > would mean if the first fails, GDB will still handle the subsequent
 > > commands.  This is currently true for mi e.g
 > 
 > And indeed, this makes me ask why this would be a desirable feature. 

It's like make and "make -k" but I guess the former is the preferred/default
behaviour.

 > We stop executing a CLI script if one command fails; I think the same
 > should apply here?

OK, I'll do that if you're agreeable and remove exception_print so each error
only gets reported once.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob